Mount Soledad & the secular sieve
By: Richard Kirk - Commentary | ∞
The lawsuit centered on the Mount Soledad cross will complete its 18th year in May without its initial litigant, Philip Paulson, who passed away in 2006. A great deal of time and passion has been expended on that suit (and others) to make sure that religious expression is quarantined in a way that applies to no other set of ideas.
The pretext for this policy is recent, dating from around 1970. According to the "living document" school of constitutional interpretation, "establishment of religion" no longer means what it clearly meant in 1791 ---- i.e., a government-funded religious institution like the Church of England. Instead, it means any "excessive entanglement" of government with things religious.
"Excessive" entanglement was later revised to mean any government-affiliated religious expression whatsoever, including invocations at high school graduations, Christmas Nativity scenes, and, according to some 9th Circuit judges, the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Indeed, our black-robed betters have decreed that the only religious trappings of our heritage that are "constitutionally" permitted are those with no religious significance. That is, as long as no one takes "In God We Trust" seriously, it can remain on our currency.
I doubt that this fingers-crossed jurisprudence is more than a way station to a religionless public square where the only exceptions are existing monuments that bear witness to a time when the Constitution wasn't wax in the hands of secular sculptors.
It's ironic that advocates of church-state separation (more accurately, religion-state separation) appeal regularly to Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists ---- as if that missive were Scripture. Jefferson, after all, was a vocal opponent of what is today called "judicial activism." And our third president issued frequent warnings about the Constitution becoming a mere scrap of paper subject to legal deconstruction.
Moreover, Jefferson was a strong advocate of limited government who would be appalled at the size and scope of the public sector today. Nowadays, government at all levels affects almost every segment of life ---- directly controlling about 35 percent of the nation's gross domestic product and indirectly leveraging (via loan and other programs) another chunk of our culture.
Were governments the size they were at the start of the 20th century, the religious cleansing of the public square would have only a symbolic impact. But since government, in accord with socialist inclinations, insinuates itself into vast areas of public life, the reinterpretation of the First Amendment has had far-reaching consequences ---- functioning like a secular sieve to transform the dollars of God-fearing taxpayers into greenbacks that promote ever-expanding "god-free" zones. In these areas, ideas that presuppose a godless universe are regarded as "neutral" expressions of free speech not subject to the special restrictions put on religion.
Even an unorthodox theist like Jefferson would find such judicial-sponsored gag rules more odious than the reasonable reflection of religious belief in a government designed to represent those same individuals. At present, a largely religious nation must pay tribute to the gods of secularism while courts declare that this shell game is demanded by a "living" Constitution.
Oceanside resident Richard Kirk is a freelance columnist for the North County Times. E-mail him at kirkrg@netzero.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Federal JudgesFail To Balance wrote on Jan 5, 2007 12:20 AM:The Pledge of Allegiance case shows that the Federal Judiciary is failing to maintain a balance between the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. The Federal Judiciary is vigorously eliminating any religious exercise or any acknowledgement of a belief in God from public schools. Thus, the Federal Judiciary's attack on the Pledge of Allegiance. An equally vigorous enforcement of the Free Exercise clause would prohibit this attack on the Pledge of Allegiance because, under the clause, the free exercise of religion cannot be prohibited. The Federal Judiciary, however, is ignoring the Free Exercise clause. Using the extreme secular view, since free religious expression must be extinguished in government activities and venues under the establishement clause, then, under the free expression clause, government activities and venues must be extinguished as long as any person exercising religion exists. Oh my! No government in the presence of religous believers? How will we survive? This irrational lack of balance reveals the corruption of the Federal Judicial over the last several decades!
Perfect Example wrote on Jan 5, 2007 12:25 AM:Godfearing dollars, after becoming taxes, most be used only in god free zones. Thus the secular sieve view of taxes. But government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. If taxes can only be used in god free zones, then taxes cannot be used at all, because the result would be a violation of the Free Exercise clause!
Gary wrote on Jan 10, 2007 9:38 AM:We survived a civil war and two world wars without "Under God" in the pledge, and now you're telling us that it is indispensible? The attack on church/state separation began with religious groups. The Knights of Columbus attacked that separation when they forced "Under God" in the pledge. The 1950's were horrible for church/state separation.
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement